Because they're behind on technology. They were just figuring out how to search pictures when torrents started to show up. Now they're downloading torrents when most tech-savvy people know that tons of sites are just straight streaming it.

I think it's kinda funny that the porn industry is using their status as a sleazy industry to force people into settlements instead of taking it to court. People don't want their names showing up in newspapers saying "ScottyDoesn'tKnow v. BangBros Inc. in the illegal distribution of Ass Pirates 9"

Because they're behind on technology. They were just figuring out how to search pictures when torrents started to show up. Now they're downloading torrents when most tech-savvy people know that tons of sites are just straight streaming it.

I think it's kinda funny that the porn industry is using their status as a sleazy industry to force people into settlements instead of taking it to court. People don't want their names showing up in newspapers saying "ScottyDoesn'tKnow v. BangBros Inc. in the illegal distribution of Ass Pirates 9"

Maybe, but it's just not that goddamn tough. I can open up my browser, type nothing but "PORN" into the address bar, and it brings up a link to streaming porn. That seems easier to figure out than torrents. But, some people are easy to overestimate, it's true. A friend of mine did recently have to give a talk at her work on using email. So, you could be right.

Because they're behind on technology. They were just figuring out how to search pictures when torrents started to show up. Now they're downloading torrents when most tech-savvy people know that tons of sites are just straight streaming it.

I think it's kinda funny that the porn industry is using their status as a sleazy industry to force people into settlements instead of taking it to court. People don't want their names showing up in newspapers saying "ScottyDoesn'tKnow v. BangBros Inc. in the illegal distribution of Ass Pirates 9"

Maybe, but it's just not that goddamn tough. I can open up my browser, type nothing but "PORN" into the address bar, and it brings up a link to streaming porn. That seems easier to figure out than torrents. But, some people are easy to overestimate, it's true. A friend of mine did recently have to give a talk at her work on using email. So, you could be right.

Hell they could also be collectors. Knew a guy in college who had 4 500GB externals. 3 of those were jam packed with nothing but porn.

/He was also caught beating it by all 3 of his roommates, so he was not the brightest bulb in the bunch//Stickiest definitely, but not the brightest

First off - I think the porn company is doing nothing more than reinforcing that they are sleazy - "We think you downloaded Fisting Hairy Lesbian Midgets #12, pay us a $3000 copyright infringement settlement or we will take you to court and your name will end up on public documents stating that you were accused of torrenting Fisting Hairy Lesbian Midgets #12" - There is a shame/embarrassment aspect to a suit like that, and while I do not have an answer as how to properly address this...I do feel it is something that does need to be looked at.

Second - Piracy does not necessarily = lost sales. What I mean by that is that just because I downloaded the newest Katy Perry album and listened to it, it also does not mean that I would have been willing to pay for it if the option to download it "for free" was not available. Presumption of lost sales is a dumb way or at least a very narrow way to look at the issue.

Finally, the issue at hand - I think as time goes on, this issue will be treated like guns. If someone burglarizes your home, takes your guns and uses them in a crime, you are not responsible for their crimes. So, if someone uses your internet connection, it is silly to hold you as the ISPs customer accountable, especially if you have taken steps to secure your WiFi connection. Also, if you take hacked PCs, hijacked systems, bot nets, proxys and the like into account here, the idea of an IP Address equaling a person is even less of a legit argument.

So, my neighbor who had an unsecured wireless router can face prosecution if I pirate off his connection??? Better use of my time than changing her signal id to 'Slutwhohasloudsexwithrandommen' and then securing it with the password 'password' and putting her computer ip address as 'blocked'. But charging her $100 to undo the stuff I did and blaming 'Those farking teenagers' is awesome.

scottydoesntknow:I think it's kinda funny that the porn industry is using their status as a sleazy industry to force people into settlements instead of taking it to court. People don't want their names showing up in newspapers saying "ScottyDoesn'tKnow v. BangBros Inc. in the illegal distribution of Ass Pirates 9"

Approves

I remember warning conservatives that the IP legislation would help the Porn industry the most.

Here's an odd realization I had: if this is successful, in that the IP address is not considered sufficient to prove an individual user did the downloading, then I expect the industry to (slowly) get behind pushing IPv6.

Why? Because there are so many addresses, NAT pretty much doesn't happen anymore, even on residential routers (the few that support IPv6 anyway). Connections are given a range of public addresses to choose from, which are assigned to every device on the network. No private addresses, even behind the firewall. Any torrenting done with IPv6 would be tracked to an IP address that represented an individual computer, not the residential router the computer connects through.

This, of course, assumes that the RIAA/MPAA has any people who actually understand technology. They did figure out how to spell "IP Address" on a subpoena though, so maybe there's one or two hiding in there.

yukichigai:Here's an odd realization I had: if this is successful, in that the IP address is not considered sufficient to prove an individual user did the downloading, then I expect the industry to (slowly) get behind pushing IPv6.

Why? Because there are so many addresses, NAT pretty much doesn't happen anymore, even on residential routers (the few that support IPv6 anyway). Connections are given a range of public addresses to choose from, which are assigned to every device on the network. No private addresses, even behind the firewall. Any torrenting done with IPv6 would be tracked to an IP address that represented an individual computer, not the residential router the computer connects through.

This, of course, assumes that the RIAA/MPAA has any people who actually understand technology. They did figure out how to spell "IP Address" on a subpoena though, so maybe there's one or two hiding in there.

Second - It doesn't have to. Especially if the plaintiff is doing more than just 'taking' a copy, but providing that material for distribution. Bittorrent = distribution. Lost sales are irrelevant, someone is taking liberties that are not theirs to take.

Finally, the issue at hand - That depends. Were your guns safely stored and secured, or did you leave them loaded and laying on your front lawn?

yukichigai:Here's an odd realization I had: if this is successful, in that the IP address is not considered sufficient to prove an individual user did the downloading, then I expect the industry to (slowly) get behind pushing IPv6.

Why? Because there are so many addresses, NAT pretty much doesn't happen anymore, even on residential routers (the few that support IPv6 anyway).

The Cathedral And The Bazaar.

There will be nat6, because some corps will create artificial scarcity around ipv6 addresses ("Another address? Why yes ... $5pcm please") and bofhs will be too incompetent/lazy/malicious to set them up properly. ("Another address? Why yes ... moar Jolt plox") There will be that itch, someone will scratch it, and $industry will suddenly need to show that nat6 wasn't happening -- same as now.

But by all means can they push for it now -- ipv6 is good. But it won't be as good for them as they think

First off - ... There is a shame/embarrassment aspect to a suit like that, and while I do not have an answer as how to properly address this...I do feel it is something that does need to be looked at.

Agreed... I'd suggest that the record could be redacted - the complaint could say something like "Porn Co. claims that Endive Wombat has willingly made infringing copies of [redacted] while [redacted] with a [redacted] in his [redacted]."

Second - Piracy does not necessarily = lost sales. What I mean by that is that just because I downloaded the newest Katy Perry album and listened to it, it also does not mean that I would have been willing to pay for it if the option to download it "for free" was not available. Presumption of lost sales is a dumb way or at least a very narrow way to look at the issue.

It's their property, so you don't get to say "I don't think your property is worth shiat, so I should feel free to use it without paying you." If you really didn't think it was worth at least some use, then you wouldn't have used it. For example, I haven't downloaded the latest Justin Beiber album because not only am I not willing to pay for it, I'm not even willing to listen to it for free.By pirating something, you're saying it has value... You're just disagreeing on what you should have to pay for that value.

Finally, the issue at hand - I think as time goes on, this issue will be treated like guns. If someone burglarizes your home, takes your guns and uses them in a crime, you are not responsible for their crimes. So, if someone uses your internet connection, it is silly to hold you as the ISPs customer accountable, especially if you have taken steps to secure your WiFi connection. Also, if you take hacked PCs, hijacked systems, bot nets, proxys and the like into account here, the idea of an IP Address equaling a person is even less of a legit argument.

Yes, with the similar argument that if you leave your guns lying around, loaded and unsecured on your front porch, and some neighbor kid picks one up and shoots someone, you will be held liable for your negligence.But that said, I don't think it will be a judicial decision that creates that liability... Rather, I could see an ISP requiring in your contractual terms of service that you stipulate that you're responsible for all data flowing through your modem, regardless of who's actually triggering the application layer requests, and agree to waive any arguments to the contrary in court.

First off - They're protecting their product. And, really, the porn industry isn't exactly oozing with decency, good will, and righteousness here.

Second - It doesn't have to. Especially if the plaintiff is doing more than just 'taking' a copy, but providing that material for distribution. Bittorrent = distribution. Lost sales are irrelevant, someone is taking liberties that are not theirs to take.

Finally, the issue at hand - That depends. Were your guns safely stored and secured, or did you leave them loaded and laying on your front lawn?

2 - Yes, I understand how Bit torrent works - what you are talking about here is "making available". But I still stand by the fact that pirated download does not necessarily = a lost sale(s)

3 - In the purest sense, I should be able to have a giant neon sign with giant arrows leading to the location of my secured and unsecured guns...coming onto my property and into my home with out my consent is called trespassing and it is already a crime. Define secured. Why does it matter if they are loaded? Am I less at fault if a gun is tucked is a concealed place next to my bed vs openly sitting on my kitchen counter?

Theaetetus:Yes, with the similar argument that if you leave your guns lying around, loaded and unsecured on your front porch, and some neighbor kid picks one up and shoots someone, you will be held liable for your negligence.

Actually, you may be liable in that case - I believe you want to see tort law on "attractive nuisance"

Endive Wombat:2 - Yes, I understand how Bit torrent works - what you are talking about here is "making available". But I still stand by the fact that pirated download does not necessarily = a lost sale(s)

Ah, but we're not talking about downloads (or rather, everyone is talking about downloads, but they shouldn't be, because the copyright owners only go after uploaders). An upload does necessarily = a lost sale of a distribution license. If you want to set up XXXWombatTube.com, legally hosting porn videos, those video publishers are going to want their license fees and royalties. If you instead illegally distribute them, they have lost those fees and royalties.

Endive Wombat:Theaetetus: Yes, with the similar argument that if you leave your guns lying around, loaded and unsecured on your front porch, and some neighbor kid picks one up and shoots someone, you will be held liable for your negligence.

Actually, you may be liable in that case - I believe you want to see tort law on "attractive nuisance"

It was an interesting experience. Plus, it was a legit reason to get half the day off work. And there was plenty of downtime to catch up on my reading. And after that I can't be called again for at least eight years.

OK, I know there's the whole "you can't beat free", but Fyre allows you one studio for $8 (so like 700 movies). It's peanuts and you'll get your porn straight away in reasonable quality. No hanging around waiting for torrents.

LGeezer:yukichigai: Here's an odd realization I had: if this is successful, in that the IP address is not considered sufficient to prove an individual user did the downloading, then I expect the industry to (slowly) get behind pushing IPv6.

Why? Because there are so many addresses, NAT pretty much doesn't happen anymore, even on residential routers (the few that support IPv6 anyway).

The Cathedral And The Bazaar.

There will be nat6, because some corps will create artificial scarcity around ipv6 addresses ("Another address? Why yes ... $5pcm please") and bofhs will be too incompetent/lazy/malicious to set them up properly. ("Another address? Why yes ... moar Jolt plox") There will be that itch, someone will scratch it, and $industry will suddenly need to show that nat6 wasn't happening -- same as now.

But by all means can they push for it now -- ipv6 is good. But it won't be as good for them as they think

Yeah, but I see nat6 as being more of a corporate thing, rather than a "every residential router will have this" sort of thing. Think about it: residential routers always have the bare minimum necessary to be functional on the internet, unless you buy the $150+ version. Why include nat6 when you can just forward DHCP6 requests to the ISP's servers? It's not as if there's any shortage of IPv6 addresses (more than one quintillion per every square inch of surface on the planet), and literally every ISP implementation of IPv6 I've seen so far just hands out as many IP addresses as the network asks for, no extra charge.

I honestly see the standard setup for IPv6, at least in the residential realm, being individual public IPs for each computer. Behind a firewall, sure, but each IP will be distinct and unique - and more importantly, logged by the ISP.

OK, I know there's the whole "you can't beat free", but Fyre allows you one studio for $8 (so like 700 movies). It's peanuts and you'll get your porn straight away in reasonable quality. No hanging around waiting for torrents.

Tommy Moo:farkeruk: Why don't more people just pay for a legal service?

OK, I know there's the whole "you can't beat free", but Fyre allows you one studio for $8 (so like 700 movies). It's peanuts and you'll get your porn straight away in reasonable quality. No hanging around waiting for torrents.

It's only hot if it's illegal. DUH!

Er... wait. I just realized that that could be taken WAAAAAAY out of context :/

Mechdemon:Honest Bender: Experts have questioned whether the IP address is sufficient evidence because it identifies an internet connection rather than an individual.

Can you trace it back to a MAC address? Too bad, then.

This, too, shall be spoofed.

More importantly, you trace it back to a cable modem and wifi access point. Okay... Who committed infringement? George Modemowner? Jane, his wife? Daughter Judy? Tard boy Elroy? Their housekeeper, Rosie? The neighbors upstairs, downstairs, either side, across the hall, etc.?That's the real issue.

scottydoesntknow:Relatively Obscure: /People pirate porn? Why?Because they're behind on technology. They were just figuring out how to search pictures when torrents started to show up. Now they're downloading torrents when most tech-savvy people know that tons of sites are just straight streaming it.

If you watch a video in a browser the only way to skip the boring parts and seek forward a bit is that you start clicking around with your mouse, using your right hand. If you download and play it in your video player software you can do the skipping with your left hand by pressing keys, which is not only convenient but is also faster.

Theaetetus:Mechdemon: Honest Bender: Experts have questioned whether the IP address is sufficient evidence because it identifies an internet connection rather than an individual.

Can you trace it back to a MAC address? Too bad, then.

This, too, shall be spoofed.

More importantly, you trace it back to a cable modem and wifi access point. Okay... Who committed infringement? George Modemowner? Jane, his wife? Daughter Judy? Tard boy Elroy? Their housekeeper, Rosie? The neighbors upstairs, downstairs, either side, across the hall, etc.?That's the real issue.

Hmmm, there seems reasonable doubt as to the identity of the actual downloader...

Cewley:fark you subby. i spent six months on a grand jury, and i can assure you most of them had a higher iQ then yours.

Yup -- had jury duty twice and I agree. The average Farker wishes they were as smart and considerate as the members of the jury were.

You see, it's really "edgy" (in a college freshman kind of way) to assume that everyone in the world is more ignorant than they are. But eventually they grow up. Well, not everyone, because you occasionally see the retarded 40-something in Occupy Wall Street gatherings, but most grow up.

Relatively Obscure:Maybe, but it's just not that goddamn tough. I can open up my browser, type nothing but "PORN" into the address bar, and it brings up a link to streaming porn. That seems easier to figure out than torrents. But, some people are easy to overestimate, it's true. A friend of mine did recently have to give a talk at her work on using email. So, you could be right.

Sometimes you're in a situation where a decent live internet connection isn't available and you have to fall back on the bank, the office network is slow and/or blocks streaming protocols but luckily you've got a USB stick and thanks to that 25 page test you just brought in the students are too preoccupied to bother you, even with the sound really low.

At least in this state there don't seem to be any "smart" exemptions. You can't claim work-related hardship because it's illegal to fire somebody for having jury duty. The only ways out seem to be excused illness or having to care for someone too young or too old to take care of their own poop.

DNRTFA, but I hope subby gets accused of a crime he did not commit, and has to rely on convincing a jury full of folks "not smart enough to get out of jury duty" that he didn't do it.

Been on 3 juries. One was a murder trial. Sitting in judgement of another human being, and being charged with deciding if that person should have to lose his life for the crime he was accused of, was the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life.

Nem Wan:At least in this state there don't seem to be any "smart" exemptions. You can't claim work-related hardship because it's illegal to fire somebody for having jury duty. The only ways out seem to be excused illness or having to care for someone too young or too old to take care of their own poop.

I don't need a "smart" exemption.

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but here in Western Australia if you show up looking like someone with an education you'll get kicked off the jury rather quickly. The lawyers only want easily-led jurors.

Theaetetus:It's their property, so you don't get to say "I don't think your property is worth shiat, so I should feel free to use it without paying you." If you really didn't think it was worth at least some use, then you wouldn't have used it. For example, I haven't downloaded the latest Justin Beiber album because not only am I not willing to pay for it, I'm not even willing to listen to it for free.By pirating something, you're saying it has value... You're just disagreeing on what you should have to pay for that value.

You know what? Home Depot could care less if I return a prehung door and said I'm not happy with it.

Nem Wan:At least in this state there don't seem to be any "smart" exemptions. You can't claim work-related hardship because it's illegal to fire somebody for having jury duty. The only ways out seem to be excused illness or having to care for someone too young or too old to take care of their own poop.

You don't fire them on the spot, but in the next round of layoffs, you damn well better believe they remember. At-will means fark you in Latin.

It's their property, so you don't get to say "I don't think your property is worth shiat, so I should feel free to use it without paying you." If you really didn't think it was worth at least some use, then you wouldn't have used it. For example, I haven't downloaded the latest Justin Beiber album because not only am I not willing to pay for it, I'm not even willing to listen to it for free.By pirating something, you're saying it has value... You're just disagreeing on what you should have to pay for that value.

No, it is not property, you dolt. It is an exclusive, but time-limited right. Property rights are roughly eternal, copyrights aren't and shouldn't.